<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>Open Review - ANUCS</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="base.css">

<div class="header">
  <div class="header-title">
    ANU College of Engineering Computing & Cybernetics
  </div>
  <a href="index.html" class="header-logo-link">
    <img src="logo.jpg" alt="ANU Logo" class="header-logo">
  </a>
</div>

<div class="file_content_wrapper">
<div class="file_content markdown-body">


<h1 id="tingzhen-liu">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#tingzhen-liu">Tingzhen Liu</a>
</h1>
<h2 id="adnlp25">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#adnlp25">AdNLP'25</a>
</h2>
<h3 id="an-efficient-and-scalable-framework-for-multi-vector-application-layer-attack-detection-in-iot-networks">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#an-efficient-and-scalable-framework-for-multi-vector-application-layer-attack-detection-in-iot-networks">AN EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE FRAMEWORK FOR MULTI-VECTOR APPLICATION-LAYER ATTACK DETECTION IN IOT NETWORKS</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>This paper proposes an attack detection method called ETDF, whose main contribution is to optimize the performance of random forests using some engineering tricks (such as manual feature extraction and sample filtering). Although relatively simple, it may have some effects. However, the main issue is that the author&rsquo;s experiment compared ETDF with other raw machine learning algorithms, which is ineffective. The author should compare it with other algorithms specifically used for attack detection, especially the random forest based methods [a, b, c], to demonstrate the effectiveness of the improvements made in this paper</li>
</ul>
<p>[a] Resende P A A ,Drummond, André Costa.A Survey of Random Forest Based Methods for Intrusion Detection Systems[J].ACM Computing Surveys, 2018, 51(3):1-36.DOI:10.1145/3178582.</p>
<p>[b] Farukee M B , Shabit M S Z , Haque M R ,et al.DDoS Attack Detection in IoT Networks Using Deep Learning Models Combined with Random Forest as Feature Selector[C]//2021.DOI:10.1007/978-981-33-6835-4_8.</p>
<p>[c] Cinar C , Dogru I A , Atacak I .Machine Learning Supported Network Attack Detection with a Novel Method Based on Random Forest-Based Feature Fusion[C]//2024 17th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptology (ISCTürkiye).0[2025-03-28].DOI:10.1109/ISCTrkiye64784.2024.10779248.</p>
<ul>
<li>The author claims that good real-time performance (suitable for deployment on IoT devices) is an important advantage of ETDF, but does not elaborate on how this is achieved. According to the method described by the author, it seems that the reason for the speed increase is the use of DeviatesFromBaseline to pass some normal traffic in advance. If that&rsquo;s the case, this trick is still effective when applied directly to random forests. So, what are the advantages of ETDF?</li>
<li>References in the relevant work ([12-24]) cannot be searched, indicating that the author used LLM to generate non-existent references. The author needs to supplement DOI of all references.</li>
<li>The paper does not provide specific rules for switching run modes based on energy consumption</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<p>The current mainstream attack detection research uses machine learning for feature fusion, while this paper is based on fixed features, which the author did not discuss this in the paper. I think this will lead to some issues, such as whether the method based on fixed features in this paper is robust in the face of adversarial attacks(<a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10154328/">https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10154328/</a>)</p>
<h4 id="decision">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>2 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 4 / 1</p>
<h5 id="overall-score">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>1/5</p>
<h3 id="optimizing-retrieval-augmented-generation-for-electrical-engineering-a-case-study-on-abb-circuit-breakers">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#optimizing-retrieval-augmented-generation-for-electrical-engineering-a-case-study-on-abb-circuit-breakers">OPTIMIZING RETRIEVAL-AUGMENTED GENERATION FOR ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING: A CASE STUDY ON ABB CIRCUIT BREAKERS</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-1">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-1">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-1">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-1">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>In this paper, the analysis is important of the RAG reliability in high-risk fields. The author&rsquo;s experiment is substantial and specifically points out potential risks in LLM output. I suggest accepting this paper.</li>
<li>Suggest the author analyze why different chunking methods produce different results. Especially the results of Q3 are surprising: based on my experience, RAG is generally sensitive to noun retrieval. However, in Q3, most of the results did not find any context related to &ldquo;time delay&rdquo;. Is this because the information in the chunk is too dense? Or does &ldquo;time delay&rdquo; appear too many times? Or is it due to other reasons?</li>
<li>The formulas in the paper should not be presented as images.</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-1">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-1">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>The format of the case analysis should be adjusted. Now the output of the model and the author&rsquo;s explanation are both in the same font, which is difficult to distinguish.</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-1">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-1">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-1">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-1">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>5 / 3 / 4 / 3 / 4 / 4</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-1">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-1">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>5/5</p>
<h3 id="large-language-models-in-clinical-advice-evaluating-direct-generation-retrieval-augmented-generation-and-human-reference-answers">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#large-language-models-in-clinical-advice-evaluating-direct-generation-retrieval-augmented-generation-and-human-reference-answers">LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS IN CLINICAL ADVICE: EVALUATING DIRECT GENERATION, RETRIEVAL AUGMENTED GENERATION AND HUMAN REFERENCE ANSWERS</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-2">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-2">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-2">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-2">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<p>This is a valuable paper that delves into how RAG technology can assist clinical advice and conducts rigorous controlled experiments. Both modeling and experimentation provide convincing details. Case studies were also conducted in the experiment, and the analysis of Graph RAG defects was impressive. The selection of methods throughout the text is appropriate. Overall, this paper does not require any revisions.</p>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-2">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-2">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<p>The writing quality is good, there is nothing that needs to be modified</p>
<h4 id="decision-2">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-2">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-2">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-2">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>5 / 4 / 5 / 4 / 5 / 5 / 5</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-2">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-2">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>5/5</p>
<h2 id="natap25">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#natap25">NATAP'25</a>
</h2>
<h3 id="measuring-poetic-intensity-a-multi-dimensional-ai-model-for-evaluating-creative-imagination-in-texts">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#measuring-poetic-intensity-a-multi-dimensional-ai-model-for-evaluating-creative-imagination-in-texts">MEASURING POETIC INTENSITY: A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL AI MODEL FOR EVALUATING CREATIVE IMAGINATION IN TEXTS</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-3">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-3">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-3">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-3">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>This paper investigates a method for evaluating poetic intensity using LLM, which has certain practical value (e.g. used for reasoning scaling-up to enable LLM to create higher quality poetry) but is technically relatively simple.</li>
<li>References [6, 13] cannot be searched. Please include DOI in the reference</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-3">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-3">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>The author&rsquo;s test data is relatively limited (a total of 12 poems). As a comparison, similar research on LLM&rsquo;s ability in poetry(<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18906">https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18906</a>) used a larger dataset (1.4k). It is acceptable for the author to use a small amount of data for case studies, but it is recommended to conduct quantitative testing on larger datasets.</li>
<li>P7 has undeleted line breaks &ldquo;\n&rdquo;</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-3">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-3">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-3">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-3">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 5 / 5 / 3</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-3">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-3">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>4/5</p>
<h3 id="boswell-test-measuring-chatbot-indispensability">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#boswell-test-measuring-chatbot-indispensability">BOSWELL TEST: MEASURING CHATBOT INDISPENSABILITY</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-4">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-4">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-4">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-4">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>The author proposed an LLM evaluation method, but its practical significance is not very clear. As a prompt based method, its technology is relatively simple.</li>
<li>The quality of this paper is not significantly different from the prompt discussions in the LLM community (more like improvisation rather than rigorous research). Writing doesn&rsquo;t seem like an academic paper (more like a blog).</li>
<li>The author has provided complete open source code and documentation on GitHub, which is very good. I suggest including the specific data analysis from the Github repository in the paper, as the current paper is too short.</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-4">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-4">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>There are significant issues with the manuscript structure: (1) This paper does not have &ldquo;related work&rdquo; section. The author should explain the similarities and differences between the metrics proposed by themselves and mainstream LLM benchmarks, rather than making general remarks. (2) Insufficient analysis of experimental results (such as lack of case studies)</li>
<li>Figures have no title and the resolution is not sufficient.</li>
<li>There are some hyperlinks in the main text, which do not conform to the format of the paper.</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-4">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-4">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-4">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-4">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>2 / 1 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-4">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-4">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>2/5</p>
<h3 id="an-ai-driven-chrome-extension-for-cyber-bully-detection-and-enhancing-online-child-safety-using-bert-and-yolov8">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#an-ai-driven-chrome-extension-for-cyber-bully-detection-and-enhancing-online-child-safety-using-bert-and-yolov8">An AI-Driven Chrome Extension for Cyber Bully Detection and Enhancing Online Child Safety using BERT and YOLOv8</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-5">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-5">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-5">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-5">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>This article is a technical report, in which the author provides a detailed explanation of front-end development and back-end deployment, but does not make some academic contribution</li>
<li>The author mentioned the importance of training data in section 2.1, but did not explain in the subsequent sections how this work collects and processes training data</li>
<li>The performance comparison on P11 should provide specific CPU and GPU models</li>
<li>The technical details of fine-tuning the model should be explained in more detail.</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-5">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-5">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>The first paragraph of the related work is a bit strange. Reference [6] pointed out the problems caused by children bypassing content filtering, but the authors did not give a positive response. Instead, they expressed their hope that children would actively choose content filtering. I&rsquo;m not quite sure what the author wants to express.</li>
<li>Why did the author use different metrics to evaluate text and images on P9? There is no positive explanation in the text</li>
<li>When making point statements on P8, some formatting symbols should be used instead of using the same format as the main text</li>
<li>Code and formulas should not be displayed as figure.</li>
<li>Open source repositories and experience website links for the project should be provided.</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-5">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-5">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-5">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-5">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>3 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 2</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-5">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-5">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>3/5</p>
<h3 id="an-intelligent-ai-system-for-summarizing-youtube-videos-using-gpt-4o-and-retrieval-augmented-generation-rag">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#an-intelligent-ai-system-for-summarizing-youtube-videos-using-gpt-4o-and-retrieval-augmented-generation-rag">An Intelligent AI System for Summarizing YouTube Videos Using GPT-4o and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-6">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-6">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-6">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-6">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>This article is a project document, not an academic paper. The work is simple and has no contribution worth mentioning</li>
<li>The article describes some specific API designs (such as API names. Therefore, this article is the same as the project documentation). But without providing the project source code, I don&rsquo;t see any point in doing so</li>
<li>The author did not describe the specific method for generating summarization. For example, what kind of query text can be used to use RAG to query the source text required for generating a summary?</li>
<li>The technical quality of reference [11] is poor, as it does not specify the specific model used. Therefore, the author&rsquo;s determination that &ldquo;its reliance on full transcript processing without selectively retrieving the most relevant sections&rdquo; is arbitrary. In fact, the author should not cite such low-quality articles (the same question also applies to some other references), and it is recommended to find some excellent articles for comparison. And clearly explain the implementation details of your method</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-6">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-6">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>Code should not be displayed as figure.</li>
<li>Open source repositories and experience website links for the project should be provided.</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-6">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-6">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-6">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-6">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-6">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-6">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>1/5</p>
<h2 id="adnlp24">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#adnlp24">AdNLP'24</a>
</h2>
<h3 id="systematic-overview-of-machine-learning-applied-for-propaganda-social-impact-research">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#systematic-overview-of-machine-learning-applied-for-propaganda-social-impact-research">SYSTEMATIC OVERVIEW OF MACHINE LEARNING APPLIED FOR PROPAGANDA SOCIAL IMPACT RESEARCH</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-7">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-7">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-7">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-7">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<p>This paper provides a systematic review of the detection and evaluation methods for FNPD, covering current cutting-edge methods and challenges. It categorizes representative methods, allowing readers to quickly understand the progress in the field. In addition, the limitations of the current methods summarized in this paper, such as the real-time challenges of graph based detection methods, are also insightful and reflect the author&rsquo;s professional competence. Overall, there are no necessary modifications to this paper</p>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-7">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-7">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>For the social impact of FNPD, most of the articles cited by the author are methodological articles on machine learning. Only a few paragraphs in these papers discuss social impact. I suggest citing more professional analysis papers in sociology</li>
<li>Suggest providing visual results for paper classification</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-7">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-7">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-7">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-7">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>5 / 4 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 5 / 5</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-7">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-7">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>5/5</p>
<h3 id="a-survey-of-evaluating-question-answering-techniques-in-the-era-of-large-language-model-llm">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#a-survey-of-evaluating-question-answering-techniques-in-the-era-of-large-language-model-llm">A Survey of evaluating Question-Answering techniques in the era of Large language model LLM</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-8">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-8">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-8">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-8">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>This paper lacks an effective research framework. Chapters 4-6 only mechanically list references, and their discussions are not closely related to the issues raised in section 3.2. So much so that the answer in 6.2 did not cite any of the reference listed earlier</li>
<li>The literature review did not mention any references related to RQ1 (LLM architecture) in section 3.2</li>
<li>The literature review did not mention any references related to RQ2 in 3.2 that could investigate the relationship between data size, model size, and LLM performance under controlled variable conditions</li>
<li>The literature review did not mention any references related to RQ3 (LLM vs. traditional methods comparison) in section 3.2</li>
<li>In section 6.2, the answers provided by the author appear to have been generated by LLM, rather than further analysis based on literature review. This answer may weaken the academic rigor of the paper. Suggest the author to re-examine the answers in section 6.2 to ensure that all conclusions are clearly based on relevant research in the literature review and appropriately cite these references in the text</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-8">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-8">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<p>The paper repeatedly uses some unusual analogies, which may confuse readers and affect the rigor of the paper. Academic papers should strive for clear, accurate, and professional expression. Suggest the author to re-examine the entire text, remove or modify any analogies that may cause misunderstandings or appear unprofessional, in order to ensure the academic and authoritative nature of the paper. Keep the focus of the paper always on the research conclusion.</p>
<h4 id="decision-8">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-8">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-8">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-8">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>3 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 3</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-8">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-8">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>1/5</p>
<h3 id="alef-enhancing-bilingual-translation-a-novel-approach-for-arabic-and-english">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#alef-enhancing-bilingual-translation-a-novel-approach-for-arabic-and-english">ALEF: Enhancing Bilingual Translation: A Novel Approach for Arabic and English</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-9">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-9">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-9">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-9">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>This paper is an engineering article, with the core workload being data preprocessing. For the machine translation model itself, this paper only finetunes MBART without proposing original techniques</li>
<li>According to the description in the paper, the <strong>Alef Model</strong> is actually <strong>MBART Large with GPT-4</strong>. I suspect this is equivalent to directly comparing <strong>GPT-4</strong> with other models (for the experiments in Table 7). Suggest adding the results of <strong>raw GPT-4</strong> to Table 7 for ablation studies. Especially the current results show that <strong>MBART Base with GPT-3.5</strong> is weaker than <strong>ChatGPT</strong>, which seems to indicate that the presence of <strong>MBART</strong> has a negative impact on the results. The author needs to provide strong evidence to prove the effectiveness of <strong>MBART</strong></li>
<li>The author should provide comparison results with other Arabic SOTA translation models (not just LLM and Google Translate). Because Alef is a domain model for translation, it seems unfair to directly compare it with LLM.</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-9">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-9">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>Suggest providing open source code and models for readers to reproduce</li>
<li>P9 is full of images on the entire page. I suggest adjusting the format</li>
<li>If the author wants to compare with LLM, it is recommended to add metrics specifically designed for LLM (such as <a href="https://arxiv.org/html/2310.11648v2)">https://arxiv.org/html/2310.11648v2)</a>. Because LLM tends to use more diverse expressions compared to domain models, it has some competitive disadvantages in traditional metrics such as BLEU</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-9">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-9">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-9">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-9">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>2 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 4 / 3 / 3</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-9">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-9">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>3/5</p>
<h3 id="tracking-concept-drift-in-classifying-e-mails">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#tracking-concept-drift-in-classifying-e-mails">Tracking Concept Drift in Classifying E-mails</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-10">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-10">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-10">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-10">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>The description of &ldquo;To close <strong>the gap in the field of concept drift in the email domain</strong>, we describe a characteristic feature of concept drift in this paper and <strong>propose a novel framework that ensembles the concept drift phenomenon with standard classifiers</strong>&rdquo; in Chapter 1 is a serious over-claim</li>
<li>(Continuing from point 1) The author&rsquo;s description of the &ldquo;feature of concept drift&rdquo; is not clearly stated in the paper. The method used in this paper appears to be ordinary and does not seem to have much academic contribution</li>
<li>There are numerous advanced methods for spam filtering based on concept drift(<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&amp;q=concept+drift+spam+emails)">https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&amp;q=concept+drift+spam+emails)</a>. The author should provide comparative results with these methods. At least comparisons with the references [11,12,13] in the paper should be provided</li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-10">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-10">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>Figures 5 and 6 are not clear, and the annotations on the horizontal axis are confusing. I suggest removing this annotation</li>
<li>Figures 3 and 4, it is recommended not to use screenshots</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-10">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-10">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-10">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-10">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>2 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 3</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-10">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-10">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>3/5</p>
<h3 id="error-analysis-and-cognitive-biases-in-named-entity-recognition-ner-a-comparative-study-of-english-and-turkish-news-articles">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#error-analysis-and-cognitive-biases-in-named-entity-recognition-ner-a-comparative-study-of-english-and-turkish-news-articles">Error Analysis and Cognitive Biases in Named Entity Recognition (NER): A Comparative Study of English and Turkish News Articles</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-11">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-11">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-11">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-11">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<p>This paper&rsquo;s discussion on comparative literature is beneficial for NLP researchers. But there is still room for improvement in terms of technical quality:</p>
<ul>
<li>Although the technical aspects are discussed in Chapter 2, the Turkish NER model of SOTA is not used for comparison in this paper (spaCy is mainly used to quickly train models in specific fields, but its performance is not the best)</li>
<li>Lack of discussion on relevant work (similar Turkish NER case study). Such as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306457322001674">https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306457322001674</a></li>
</ul>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-11">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-11">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<p>The writing quality is good, there is nothing that needs to be modified</p>
<h4 id="decision-11">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-11">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-11">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-11">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>4 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 5 / 5 / 3</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-11">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-11">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>4/5</p>
<h2 id="aiipcc24">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#aiipcc24">AIIPCC'24</a>
</h2>
<h3 id="a-meeting-minutes-generation-model-based-on-speech-text-dual-modal">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#a-meeting-minutes-generation-model-based-on-speech-text-dual-modal">A Meeting Minutes Generation Model based on Speech-Text Dual-Modal</a>
</h3>
<h4 id="review-12">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#review-12">Review</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-12">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-comments-and-changes-that-must-be-made-before-publication-12">Overall comments and changes that MUST be made before publication</a>
</h5>
<p>The author used the text to speech method to construct a multimodal dataset in the experiment. Based on the experimental results, the author believes that &ldquo;audio information plays an important role in capturing nonverbal cues within the conference context&rdquo;. But this speech is algorithm generated and does not provide any information other than text. Therefore, the author&rsquo;s analysis is unreasonable. I think either the model is overfitting or there are issues with the author&rsquo;s results</p>
<h5 id="suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-12">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#suggestions-which-would-improve-the-quality-of-the-paper-but-are-not-essential-for-publication-12">Suggestions which would improve the quality of the paper but are NOT essential for publication</a>
</h5>
<ul>
<li>One of the datasets used in the author&rsquo;s experiment, UNGA[21], is non-public. The paper[21] does not provide a way to access the dataset, and it cannot be searched on GitHub or Huggingface.</li>
<li>Suggest providing open source repository links and specific experimental result cases</li>
</ul>
<h4 id="decision-12">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#decision-12">Decision</a>
</h4>
<h5 id="sub-score-12">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#sub-score-12">Sub-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>Significance of the main idea / Originality / Technical quality / Awareness of related work / Clarity of presentation / Organization of the manuscript / References</p>
<p>3 / 3 / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4</p>
<h5 id="overall-score-12">
<a class="Heading-link u-clickable" href="/review/#overall-score-12">Overall-Score</a>
</h5>
<p>3/5</p>


<script>
  document.body.innerHTML = document.body.innerHTML.replace(/“/g, '"').replace(/”/g, '"').replace(/’/g, "'").replace(/\/review\//g, "");
</script>

</div>
</div>